2sp p p 2NT

[Flame]

2♠ pass (pass) 2NT

 

I thought its (12)13-15(16) or something like that , but people are talking about 16-18.

 

2♠ was weak.

[Free]

I'd say 15-18, since p passed already he won't have enough when I bid 2NT on 13HCP...

[Fluffy]

It depends on the strenght needed to double 2♠ or to bid a suit in your partnership. Always is a hand that is able to make game when partner has his maximum for a pass.

[helene_t]

I'd say 15-18, since p passed already he won't have enough when I bid 2NT on 13HCP...

I agree with Flame: Partner may have passed with 14 HCP if his hand does not have the shape for a t/o double.

[luis]

15-17 to me. With 13-14 if you can't double 2♠ then you'd better pass.

RHO pass doesn't mean he is not at the table.

[Flame]

I'd say 15-18, since p passed already he won't have enough when I bid 2NT on 13HCP...

I agree with Flame: Partner may have passed with 14 HCP if his hand does not have the shape for a t/o double.

Thanks for agreeing with me, but i think we are wrong here.

I just thought its like balacing 1nt but i guess its not and 2nt is too risky with 13 hcp.

[gabika73]

What is the point in bidding 2nt with ~13?

 

Partner will not have 10-15 with shape (that is a hand to overcall or dbl), so the only hand he can hold to justify our bid is similar to our hand: (semi)balanced 11-14.

 

With his holding, however, 2♠ by opps will not be a piece of cake: at least, not for them. We cannot double, however, with heart shortage (though with 3 good hearts and max 2 spades we can try), so opps will go down undoubled. If they are VUL, we do not loose too much, though.

 

The risk is there, especialy when VUL vs NV, though not as much of a risk than that of declaring 2 or 3nt, without a good suit, and without enough power, and with all suits breaking oddly. RHO is at the table, as Luis siad, and is ready to show us his red card...

 

So, even when reopening, or 2nt should be 15-18 (maybe good 14...)

 

And ask partner to dbl as often as he can in direct seat, even more than he would dbl a one-level opening.

[MickyB]

What is the logic of a balancing 2NT being substantially weaker than a direct seat 2NT? If I have a balanced 14 in 2nd seat then I am already fairly certain they aren't bidding on (except with a preemptive 3♠). Seems to me the ranges should be fairly similar, maybe as light as 14-16/17 in both seats?

[Flame]

To those who ask about the logic in having less hcp for the bid, did you ever heard of a balancing 1nt ? 1nt in balance show 11-14 and some strech it to 10 or even 9 hcp, do you find a logic in this ?

I think its the same logic but like i said i agree that with 2nt this logic inst enough and 2nt should be 15-17 or maybe 14-16.

[gabika73]

Balancing 1nt and 2nt are not the same, as you imply in your post.

 

- Higher risk. No need to comment furher.

- Partner should be more willing to enter auction after 2M than after a 1level opening bid with any contructive hand. Therefore lower the gain.

- Takes away our "natural" 2nt bid (i.e. the real 2nt range). With that said, your double will be overloaded. And there is much less space to resolve than after a 1level bid.

 

But, as your post says, you do agree.

[Flame]

Balancing 1nt and 2nt are not the same, as you imply in your post.

 

- Higher risk. No need to comment furher.

- Partner should be more willing to enter auction after 2M than after a 1level opening bid with any contructive hand. Therefore lower the gain.

- Takes away our "natural" 2nt bid (i.e. the real 2nt range). With that said, your double will be overloaded. And there is much less space to resolve than after a 1level bid.

 

But, as your post says, you do agree.

yes i do agree excpet to this

"Partner should be more willing to enter auction after 2M than after a 1level opening bid with any contructive hand. Therefore lower the gain."

 

partner needs more to compete over 2 level then over 1 level.

[gabika73]

partner needs more to compete over 2 level then over 1 level.

This might open a new thread....;-)

[Flame]

partner needs more to compete over 2 level then over 1 level.

This might open a new thread....;-)

Well if you think you are right about it, please open a new thread i will be very happy to learn new things.

[EarlPurple]

A basic difference when balancing with 1NT and in fact after any one-level bid has been passed out, and balancing over a weak 2 bid, is that in the first instance, our RHO has shown a very weak hand which means the opponent's strength is condensed very much in one hand. This is usually bad for them and good for us.

 

When you might overcall 2NT in the balancing position (after a weak 2 opening) with a weaker hand is when you have a decent minor suit. Here the chances of running off some tricks in the minor compensate for a lack of high card strength. In fact with a very good minor you might gamble 3NT for example you have AKQxxx solid in clubs or diamonds and AQx in their suit. That's only 14 points but 3NT is probably your best bid and hope your partner has 1 trick and adequate stoppers (and that your minor really does run).

[paulhar]

As usual, I'm going to disagree with most of the respondants. Firstly, to overcall 2NT with 14 in direct seat is just asking for trouble. LHO is unlimited and you could be going for a huge telephone number. Attempts by your partner to run when you have spade length aren't likely to be successful.

 

On the other hand, you could easily have 27-28 points when you're in balancing seat with 14 points. It is true that RHO could punish you, but he in theory hasn't got enough to even look for a game. (If your opponents play 8-10 weak 2's, you're on a lot riskier ground here - I've seen people play that and sometimes RHO knows he has you when game was out of the question. It's a lot harder when his partner could have 5.)

 

Even if your partner has about 10, you're not a great underdog to make 3NT. When RHO hasn't got spade length, these hands should be easier to play. LHO has lots of spades and hardly any entries, and RHO has everything else. Playing notrump against an weak 2 opening with length in their suit rates to take more tricks than the same two hands declaring with no opposition bidding.

 

So, with your 14 opposite partner's 7, card placing may make you a favoirte to make 2NT, and you'll miss a lot of games if you pass with 14 and spade length. Needless to say, some of these are games that you wouldn't get to without the 2S bid, but when the opportunity is there, why not seize it?

 

Despite overloading the double, I might sneak down to a good 13 for the bottom of the 2NT range. Partner will pretend I have a strong notrump and I'll be playing some games on a god 13 opposite 10 but I'll also be playing some games on a good 13 opposite 13 or 14. But I plan to make some of those 'weakies' because the opponents have given me a lot of information in the bidding. Frequently, when you're in trouble, the lack of a double might help you place the weak 2 bidder near the top of his range.

[jtfanclub]

ONE side has to bid with a balanced 13 count and spade stops. If you don't, you're going to be missing a lot of 3NT games and let them play undoubled.

 

I think there's a good argument for making the balancing 2NT weaker than the direct 2NT. Usually with all 4 suits you're better off with balancing seat being the declarer at 3NT. Besides, it's easier to stop at 3 of a minor regardless of which hand has the length if direct seat has passed.

[pclayton]

I play it as basically a strong NT. I'm not barred from adjusting my point range for the right kind of hand; I'd make the call on: AQ9x, xx, KQTxx, Kx, or maybe KJTxx of diamonds, however. Note: systems on in this position.

 

Whats the point of getting involved with a flat 13 here with no trick source? You're spades are under the gun, you have no trick source, and you have no likely safety at the 3 level in a suit.

[jtfanclub]

I play it as basically a strong NT. I'm not barred from adjusting my point range for the right kind of hand; I'd make the call on: AQ9x, xx, KQTxx, Kx, or maybe KJTxx of diamonds, however. Note: systems on in this position.

 

Whats the point of getting involved with a flat 13 here with no trick source? You're spades are under the gun, you have no trick source, and you have no likely safety at the 3 level in a suit.

Maybe I'm just weird, but I don't play the double in balancing position as takeout. I play it as 'action', where partner can, and often will, leave it in. This hand is therefore a textbook double, since you likely have 5 tricks in your hand alone.

 

My 13 point 2NT has something like: AQ xxx KJTxx Kxx. Now I don't want to play 2S doubled, and if my partner is weak I can handle him taking it out to any suit. On the other hand, it's likely that letting them play at 2S undoubled will not be a good board.

[MickyB]

Yes, I've played a *direct* seat double as 'optional' rather than takeout (basically promising 2-3 in their suit). I'm not sure how this compares with playing a balancing seat double as optional, nor, indeed, if this is better than just playing takeout doubles.

[luke warm]

i play 2nt in balancing seat as 13-16, 15-17 in direct seat

[Flame]

I don't think you should decide to play this or that, there are two ways to know whats the right way to play something, either check thousend of hands taking into accout many many variable , which is close to impossible, the second is to check what is the right way played by the world class players, and writen in the books.

Trust me you will gain nothing by plaing your weird stuff.

I thought it show less the 15-17, i asked and i understand i was wrong, simple as that, i will not even try to argue my way was better, because its just imposible to show something like that, or maybe will take 6 month of work. my advice just go with the experts.

[Cascade]

I might shade 2NT by a point in 4th seat but not by more than that.

 

2♠ 2NT 15-18

 

2♠ Pass Pass 2NT (14)15-17

[the hog]

Agree with Wayne. Maybe shade the protective 2N by a point.